Joseph Arch

My blind devotion, as you proclaim it, is still a devotion. If there were no actors taking 20 million dollars or more from a film's budget then digital would not work it's way in and try to take over film way before it's time. There is no logic in saving a few million dollars on film but giving more to an actor.

Don't get ahead of you're self.

I shall quote you on that and return your memory to this thread in five years.

As I have stated before. I do work with digital format but not when it is on cinema. I have seen Crank 2 on cinema. That stank of digital. Most of the scenes were awful to look at.

I have a few cinematographer friends that would laugh at you for that statement. Apparently, you seem to find work only related to digital.

I can tell the difference based on my experience. When I am able to earn more experience, there will be no need for me to lower my self to digital.

Highly informative responses ;) David is on fire.

I do agree with you that audiences are more smarter then before but not in the sense of technical details. They are driven towards more story though not technical details. I have been asking people at the movies and the majority says they are into the story more. Actors came in second place, directors in third and the younger audiences, teenagers mostly, say they want to see visual effects. This industry can really surprise you in many ways just when you think you are getting to know the game.

For you to light a scene. I have been on sets where it has taken the D.P three hours, literary, to light and shoot one shot. Other times it has taken a different D.P less then one hour to light and shoot a whole scene and move on within a day. My questions are; 1. Is lighting the most important part of cinematography? Does lighting help that "film" look we all crave to achieve? 2. Does it really matter if a shot is below half a T stop? Who else is going to recognise it but you? The audience will never know the difference about different films stocks, lighting and looks. 3. what has been your experience on a set regarding time and budget mixed with someone's opinion on how long it should take.

Maybe. However, from countless arguments about film vs digital the digital people think that if the audience can't tell the difference between them then it's time for film to die. That is the perception they have. Look at RED forum. All you can see is "bye bye film", "die film die". Complete ignorance. I would like learn as much about film first more then digital. Someone that makes a jump into photoshop and skips hand drawing will be useless with drawing. I do stand by my statement that digital has no place in cinema at the moment. It will sometime but not right now. I am not a technical person at cinematography yet but I am so passionate to learn that I have to at least fight for it.

I looked at BB from a viewers point. Hence why I could not tell the difference between digital and film. After seeing it again I can see this time that it was all digital. Unfortunately. Your argument seems to be that if I was tricked into thinking it was a masterpiece of cinematography then film is dead. My praise about it being a great work of cinematography is invalid because I am not qualified to give a technical review on it. Unfortunately. Seriously, when you try and trick people into thinking something is good when it is really bad, then a backlash will step on you. When I am qualified to debate with you about film vs digital is for future time.

When I learn cinematography on a professional scale my mind will still not change between digital and film. I may not know much about the topic now but when I do you will wish I did not.

I do agree with you that technology often changes and will replace most of what we do. I am not against digital. Far from it, I actually like digital when I am working with a DP on small projects. Its cheap and fast. However, when movies are on the table I prefer film because of quality and flexibility. It is true that when technology is used by as many people as possible on the field rather then 20 people in a lab, progress often picks up rapidly because different people find different problems and report them. I would not say no to digital but I would always say yes to film. I like to get my hands dirty to get the feel of film. I am just curious as to when, if ever, digital will pick up 65mm. In future, it could even go beyond that.

What I mean, David, is those formats are trying to run before walking. Those defending them are kicking them from behind. I can tell a difference when HD is used because certain looks it gives off. Some HD is better then other and can actually fool the audience and cinematographer. Fooling people seems to be the aim of the masses at the moment on a format not ready yet. I prefer film. I like the genuine thing.

No it has not changed because it was not all shot digitally. I am still learning to read film from a technical view as a cinematographer. I still prefer film and especially 35mm anamorphic when it comes to cinema. I am not against digital. I believe digital is best suited for documentaries, music videos, news, independent features and sports. However, film should be for cinema. No place for digital in cinema. Not at the moment anyway.

I stand corrected David. My question still stands though, why use technology which is dodgy rather then film that has been around decades and full proof safe to work with. A highly creative process and collaborations between artists. Why give an actor 20 million and sacrifice film. Stepping stone for illogical thinking.

I still don't understand what you are trying to do. Benjamin Button was shot on Arriflex 435, as well as digital but the main was the Arriflex. I am still learning cinematography so I sometimes look at film from a viewers point. When I look at it from an artistic point, you just can't defeat film. It can be manipulated in different ways, the potential is endless.

"An Arricam ST NEVER has a bad boot, never drops frames and shoots footage far beyond 4K" - quote for truth. RED can have a bad boot, it can drop frames, and it can just do outright weird poop. The work flow is still pretty tedious and wonky. "People tout grainless images as a superior quality to digital cinema capture. That's fine until you realize that knowledgeable post people are adding grain back to digital images to get rid of plastic-y skin tones so commonly found in digitally captured images- even from Red cameras. Film is also immune to IR contamination in the image compared to digital cinema cameras like Red where the effects of Infared contamination are well documented and something to be avoided Film acquisition is a mature process, people are comfortable with the technology, there are lots of techniques to manipulate the image in the optical realm and the digital realm - the process works. On the digital cinema side the process is less mature - more open to a kind of 'roll your own' approach afforded by software based workflow. There are as many pitfalls over here as there are ways to roll a workflow."

What is your point?

It is not really as good as film but close. Ask them to recreate the same look in Saving Private Ryan using RED and they will fail. Every red user is getting an erection about this film when it is just standard looking. Not Oscar worthy like Saving Private Ryan or Passion of the Christ. Doesn't do anything for me.

I can understand some of the peoples views but I am with Adrian. When it comes to cinema I am pro film for life.

50M for the actor :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

4-7 million is very small number. Why do studios feel the need to sacrifice film for digital? This is ridiculous. Digital is good for independent films, documentaries, commercials, music. Digital has no place in cinema.

Studios are always wanting to shoot digital to save some $$$ and this sacrifices quality. We all know Spielberg likes film while Lucas likes digital. So, what is the total cost of a feature film cinematography. If I miss anything out please correct me. Add this + Camera + Lenses + accessories + stock + processing That is the bread and butter to make a film look like film. How much would it cost a studio for a 2hr feature film just for the cinematography part. 4-7 million or more?

That is a simple compositing technique using high end programs flame or inferno. very simple.